Hi Acoustat6,
I still feel that the vehemance in the argument is a bit disproportionate. I just read the thread that seems to create many of the current issues and Raul states that he HAS treated his room: "I'm very luckily and don't have (I fix it) many room problems related." I'm not certain how extensive or successful this 'fix' now is in his system but it hardly seems grounds for assuming a complete acoustic disaster!
I feel that there are potential compromises in our efforts to capture live music and distinctions along the whole audio chain: original performance; unique venue; particular recording process; replay system (Hifi); receptive environment (both 'subjective' - hearing ability, preferences and expections - and 'objective' - listening room, stands etc). Our two most manageable and consistent parts in this chain would be the hifi and listening room. Maybe this typifies your argument and I do agree concerning the industry but we are all aware that Turkeys rarely vote for thanksgiving?
However, your point about the "live venue" could make any argument for neutrality redundant. If our "reproduced venue" becomes our individual "theatre" then the question of the performers that appear there would largely remain one for our hifi systems. This on the basis of your argument that there is no one, absolute "live venue" and performers will sound different at distinct venues/theatres. Such questions of compromise and individual judgement might therefore affect all points in the audio chain.
I probably have to say this however, as I have lived with my hifi in various and distinct acoustic environments and know that I can get a consistency through the best equipment and worse of environments. A customised listening room would however be the icing on my cake. Maybe for fairer times!
I still feel that the vehemance in the argument is a bit disproportionate. I just read the thread that seems to create many of the current issues and Raul states that he HAS treated his room: "I'm very luckily and don't have (I fix it) many room problems related." I'm not certain how extensive or successful this 'fix' now is in his system but it hardly seems grounds for assuming a complete acoustic disaster!
I feel that there are potential compromises in our efforts to capture live music and distinctions along the whole audio chain: original performance; unique venue; particular recording process; replay system (Hifi); receptive environment (both 'subjective' - hearing ability, preferences and expections - and 'objective' - listening room, stands etc). Our two most manageable and consistent parts in this chain would be the hifi and listening room. Maybe this typifies your argument and I do agree concerning the industry but we are all aware that Turkeys rarely vote for thanksgiving?
However, your point about the "live venue" could make any argument for neutrality redundant. If our "reproduced venue" becomes our individual "theatre" then the question of the performers that appear there would largely remain one for our hifi systems. This on the basis of your argument that there is no one, absolute "live venue" and performers will sound different at distinct venues/theatres. Such questions of compromise and individual judgement might therefore affect all points in the audio chain.
I probably have to say this however, as I have lived with my hifi in various and distinct acoustic environments and know that I can get a consistency through the best equipment and worse of environments. A customised listening room would however be the icing on my cake. Maybe for fairer times!